Is this legal?

Shadylou

Just looking for a bit of advise on this one. I bought 2 pairs of boots for my daughter on 6th November in Barrett's shoe store as I did not have her with me and I was unsure which size to get her so the sales assistant told me I could get a full refund on one or both pairs if they did not suit. She said I had 28 days to get this refund which brings me to 4th December.
As it turns out 1 pair is too small and the other pair is too narrow , I went in today to get the refund, both pairs are in there box and not worn but they wouldn't give me my refund there gone in to receivership or something and they won't even exchange them!
I am now stuck with 2 pairs of boots that don't fit my daughter after paying €96 for them they are useless to me....do I have any rights?

dulpit

I would assume not, the products you bought were in perfect saleable condition when purchased, it's the buyer's responsibility to ensure they are correct size/etc, not the seller's.

Shadylou

dulpit wrote: »

I would assume not, the products you bought were in perfect saleable condition when purchased, it's the buyer's responsibility to ensure they are correct size/etc, not the seller's.

Even though I told the girl I wasn't sure of the size and she said that I could get a refund, it even says it on the receipt?

Cabaal

Shadylou wrote: »

Even though I told the girl I wasn't sure of the size and she said that I could get a refund, it even says it on the receipt?

you'd have to prove she said that
- did she put anything in writing
- is there anything in their store policy's that allows you to return items in such cases

If not then you're out of luck,

Oryx

Cabaal wrote: »

you'd have to prove she said that
- did she put anything in writing
- is there anything in their store policy's that allows you to return items in such cases

If not then you're out of luck,

OP says it mentioned 28 refunds on the receipt? Do the conditions change when a company go into recievership?

Shadylou

Oryx wrote: »

OP says it mentioned 28 refunds on the receipt? Do the conditions change when a company go into recievership?

It says on the back of the receipt that if I am unhappy with my purchase then I can bring it back in a resell able condition( which they are, they were only tried on for a minute) then I can get a refund within 28 days
The girl on the till even said that I would have been told I could get a refund on the day I bought them but that because they didn't know then about the administration or something that they don't have to honour their word.

L1011

Any voluntary extensions of consumer rights like this can be withdrawn whenever they want. The receiver has clearly done so. You have no legal rights here.

sandin

everyone is missing a very important point in the original post. Barretts are in RECEIVERSHIP.

Even if the girl gave it to you in writing and promised the sun moon and stars, you have unfortunately being caught up in a legal conundrum - similar to HMV, were and A-Wear today. She said it in good faith as she would not have known it was about to go bust - her job is also all byt gone too.

The company you bought the shoes from are basically bust and the legal firm that is running the business is doing so to try and get a buyer. If the stores close, they can lose value.

Personally I can't see a buyer being found and you will see a mega clearance sale soon. In a official receivership /liquidation sale all sales would be final and it is one of the very few areas where you won't have come back if anything bought in a liquidation sale is afterwards found faulty.

Shadylou

I guess I'll just have accept it then, I really felt sorry for the girl behind the till so I just left it, she gave me an address I can write to so I will try that.....I really need that €100 back though cos I'd already spent Santa money on a pair of lelly Kelly boots for her and I needed the money to finish off paying for a Santa present lol so it was already spent in my head

Corruptedmorals

Unfortunate, but you could always sell them on adverts.ie etc., children's clothes and shoes sell well.

Barratt's have more than likely operated their goodwill policy for years and years. It's important to note that it goes beyond your statutory rights - you are never legally entitled to a change-of-mind refund. Sales assistants are usually the last to know, she gave you that information in good faith. Receivers can and will impose their own policies- and limiting aftersales services would usually be the first step, understandably.

Victor

Shadylou wrote: »

do I have any rights?

It would seem no. The product is of merchantable quality.

Why don't you return with your daughter and try to get an exchange instead of a refund? Spending some money with them might encourage them.

Shadylou

Victor wrote: »

It would seem no. The product is of merchantable quality.

Why don't you return with your daughter and try to get an exchange instead of a refund? Spending some money with them might encourage them.

I asked if I could exchange them for a pair of shoes for my son and a pair of boots for me and they said that they absolutely cannot even change them

dudara

Try contacting the receiver - but I wouldn't have any great expectations.

Shadylou

dudara wrote: »

Try contacting the receiver - but I wouldn't have any great expectations.

Thats what the girl told me.....I'd say I'm down the bottom of a very long list though

GerardKeating

Shadylou wrote: »

Thats what the girl told me.....I'd say I'm down the bottom of a very long list though

Did you pay with a Credit Card, your bank Might do a chargeback, you were promised a refund, which they now will not honour, but it's a stretch.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

Any voluntary extensions of consumer rights like this can be withdrawn whenever they want. The receiver has clearly done so. You have no legal rights here.

What basis do you have for this? There are various pieces of consumer legislation that stop this from happening, chief of which is the Consumer Protection Act.

Receivership may or may not change the OPs position, but a running business can not unilaterally change contract terms.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

What basis do you have for this? There are various pieces of consumer legislation that stop this from happening, chief of which is the Consumer Protection Act.

Receivership may or may not change the OPs position, but a running business can not unilaterally change contract terms.

A voluntary offer such as this is not a contract term and is completely uncovered by any legislation.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

A voluntary offer such as this is not a contract term and is completely uncovered by any legislation.

What is your basis for this assertion? It clearly falls within the ambit of the Consumer protection Act. Read sections 41 onwards.

What makes you think it's not part of the contract simpliciter?

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

What is your basis for this assertion? It clearly falls within the ambit of the Consumer protection Act. Read sections 41 onwards.

What makes you think it's not part of the contract simpliciter?

Go ahead, show me where it specifies that voluntary offers over and above consumer rights have any legal protection. Rather than referring obtusely to a section on misleading consumer practices and advertising none of which apply here.

emeldc

Shadylou wrote: »

I asked if I could exchange them for a pair of shoes for my son and a pair of boots for me and they said that they absolutely cannot even change them

Surely that can't be right. The shop is still open. They're still selling shoes. Does it mean that if I buy a pair of shoes today that I cant exchange them tomorrow for whatever reason just because they're in administration . Who in their right mind would buy a pair of shoes there now if that's the case.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

Go ahead, show me where it specifies that voluntary offers over and above consumer rights have any legal protection. Rather than referring obtusely to a section on misleading consumer practices and advertising none of which apply here.

If you can't read one section of an act you've no business commenting that there is no legislative provisions.

The basic standard is that if a consumer is induced into a transaction they would not normally make then there has been a breach of the CPA. 'Full refund or 'Change your mind within X days clear and obviously falls under this.

You've still not backed up your assertions - You still haven't made any reference to why a returns policy can't form part of a contract simpliciter.

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

Surely that can't be right. The shop is still open. They're still selling shoes. Does it mean that if I buy a pair of shoes today that I cant exchange them tomorrow for whatever reason just because they're in administration . Who in their right mind would buy a pair of shoes there now if that's the case.

You never have any innate legal right to exchange something for 'whatever reason' anywhere, only if its defective, doesn't meet description or similar.

Bepolite

emeldc wrote: »

Surely that can't be right. The shop is still open. They're still selling shoes. Does it mean that if I buy a pair of shoes today that I cant exchange them tomorrow for whatever reason just because they're in administration . Who in their right mind would buy a pair of shoes there now if that's the case.

I'm afraid my company law isn't great on varying terms of contracts under these situations but given HMV and gift vouchers I'd say they probably have some out. That said they may just know they are in contravention of consumer law and doing it anyway due to the circumstances.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

If you can't read one section of an act you've no business commenting that there is no legislative provisions.

The basic standard is that if a consumer is induced into a transaction they would not normally make then there has been a breach of the CPA. 'Full refund or 'Change your mind within X days clear and obviously falls under this.

You've still not backed up your assertions - You still haven't made any reference to why a returns policy can't form part of a contract simpliciter.

A voluntary, withdrawable offer would not induce the average consumer in to buying something. Irish consumer law does not protect people who don't read terms and conditions.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

You never have any innate legal right to exchange something for 'whatever reason' anywhere, only if its defective, doesn't meet description or similar.

Where is this written? You keep parroting this off. You are talking about rights under one piece of legislation, there are numerous pieces of legislation and a whole body of law on contracts.

MYOB wrote: »

A voluntary, withdrawable offer would not induce the average consumer in to buying something. Irish consumer law does not protect people who don't read terms and conditions.

What are you on about. Once a contract is formed the conditions can't be changed by one side. Do you not realise how ridiculous that would be? Your terms and conditions point is confused. A returns policy will form part of the T&Cs. These might be on the receipt or posted on a sign in the store.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

Where is this written? You keep parroting this off. You are talking about rights under one piece of legislation, there are numerous pieces of legislation and a whole body of law on contracts.

Where is what written? The reasons why someone can return an item are stated, the reasons why they can't aren't.

Bepolite

Sorry MYOB you're wrong in this instance - if a contract is formed on X basis then it's formed on X basis. You can't then say 'oh actually I changed my mind'. Consumer law does not override a decision taken by a private business to offer more than a customer's statutory rights.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

Sorry MYOB you're wrong in this instance - if a contract is formed on X basis then it's formed on X basis. You can't then say 'oh actually I changed my mind'. Consumer law does not override a decision taken by a private business to offer more than a customer's statutory rights.

Can you show any incidences, at all, of this scenario being upheld in court?

There's the additional and more serious issue of the company in question being in receivership but we can leave that out for this purpose.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

Can you show any incidences, at all, of this scenario being upheld in court?

I'll tell you what. I will go searching on Westlaw and Justis for you but first show me evidence for your proposition which isn't a link to 'commonly held knowledge here'. Show me any primary source (legislation / case law) or secondary source (text book / academic commentary) that backs up your position.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

There's the additional and more serious issue of the company in question being in receivership but we can leave that out for this purpose.

Can we - given your knowledge of company law please point us in the direction of where a receiver can vary the terms of it's contracts. This is a genuine question I am honestly willing to be guided here as I'm happy to admit when I don't know something.

L1011

I'm going to take that as a lengthy 'no', then

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

You never have any innate legal right to exchange something for 'whatever reason' anywhere, only if its defective, doesn't meet description or similar.

The point I'm trying to make is that, in my experience, most shops will at least exchange goods of all descriptions as long as they are in perfect condition and are returned within a reasonable time with proof of purchase. Does this practice suddenly stop just because the company is in administration. Have you never bought a pair of shoes that felt fine in the shop only to feel that maybe you could have done with a bigger size after you've tried them on at home. They're not defective but I'd be pissed off if they wouldn't exchange them for another pair and used some administration bull sh*t as the reason.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

I'm going to take that as a lengthy 'no', then

It is what it is. So far you've provided no evidence for your assertions. I've linked you to the legislation which you've either not read or misread. You've confused the issue of terms and conditions and completely misunderstood how a contract is formed. As I've indicated I will go looking for cases for you but educating you isn't a one way street.

I've also asked for something in return which is some info on receivership - are you going to oblige?

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is that, in my experience, most shops will at least exchange goods of all descriptions as long as they are in perfect condition and are returned within a reasonable time with proof of purchase. Does this practice suddenly stop just because the company is in administration. Have you never bought a pair of shoes that felt fine in the shop only to feel that maybe you could have done with a bigger size after you've tried them on at home. They're not defective but I'd be pissed off if they wouldn't exchange them for another pair and used some administration bull sh*t as the reason.

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

It is what it is. So far you've provided no evidence for your assertions. I've linked you to the legislation which you've either not read or mis read. You've confused the issue of terms and conditions and completely misunderstood how a contract is formed. As I've indicated I will go looking for cases for you but educating you isn't a one way street.

I've also asked for something in return which is some info on receivership - are you going to oblige?

You've provided legislation of no relevance to this issue - or are refusing to prove relevance. Which is it?

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

Thats not what he/she said. He's suggested that changing one pair of sellable shoes for another pair of sellable shoes seems like BS to him/her. Which of course it is.

Bepolite

MYOB wrote: »

You've provided legislation of no relevance to this issue - or are refusing to prove relevance. Which is it?

See the previous posts.

L1011

Bepolite wrote: »

See the previous posts.

I have.

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

Receivership is an extremely serious legal process and not bull**** as you suggest.

Even I know there's a difference between receivership and administration. If you know so much about it can you not just answer the post. Best get off that high horse before you fall off it.

28064212

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/consumer_protection/consumer_rights/unfair_terms.html
Specifically:

When you buy goods or services you enter into a contract with the supplier of goods and services. This is called a consumer contract. Specifically a consumer is a person who is buying a service or a product from someone whose normal business it is to sell that product or service.

Contracts may be written or oral. It is easier to know precisely what the terms are in a written contract but an oral contract is also enforceable in law. Consumer contracts may differ and there are no hard and fast rules governing what terms should be in a consumer contract.

An officially stated returns policy is part of the terms of the consumer contract. A retailer cannot unilaterally change these terms after the contract is entered into.

However, the company being in receivership may change things. You may be entitled to an exchange, but that's not much good if you're at the end of a long of people entitled to things

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

Even I know there's a difference between receivership and administration. If you know so much about it can you not just answer the post. Best get off that high horse before you fall off it.

Administration is a UK term. In Ireland they're either in examinership or receivership.

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

Administration is a UK term. In Ireland they're either in examinership or receivership.

Nice try but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Administration is the same as examinership ............ but receivership is different to both.
RTE are happy to use the Brit version
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1111/485969-barratts-shoes/

Bepolite

Receivership deals with secured creditors generally. I'm still unclear how, if a receiver takes the decision to keep the business running, under what theory they can refuse to honour contracts. Obviously they can breach a contract but is there something that allows them to do this?

I don't expect to get an answer of course.

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

Nice try but I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. Administration is the same as examinership ............ but receivership is different to both.
RTE are happy to use the Brit version
http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2013/1111/485969-barratts-shoes/

Administration is more serious than Irish examinership. Both are far more serious than you seem to believe. RTE are referring to the UK parent.

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

Administration is more serious than Irish examinership. Both are far more serious than you seem to believe. RTE are referring to the UK parent.

............. so no chance you can answer my original query then.

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

............. so no chance you can answer my original query then.

What query? That you've an expectation that every shop will take returns for change of mind?

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

What query? That you've an expectation that every shop will take returns for change of mind?

It's called customer service and goodwill. Something that's obviously missing from your profession. Maybe that's why you cant answer.

L1011

emeldc wrote: »

It's called customer service and goodwill. Something that's obviously missing from your profession. Maybe that's why you cant answer.

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

28064212

MYOB wrote: »

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

But if they do offer it as a condition of the sale, they are legally bound by it

emeldc

MYOB wrote: »

Its also not a legal obligation for a retailer to offer it.

You need to stop repeating yourself.
You should also hope that no one buys you a pair of shoes for Christmas that might be a bit tight.

L1011

28064212 wrote: »

But if they do offer it as a condition of the sale, they are legally bound by it

Has this actually been upheld in court?

emeldc wrote: »

You need to stop repeating yourself.
You should also hope that no one buys you a pair of shoes for Christmas that might be a bit tight.

If you didn't stop asking the same thing you wouldn't keep getting the same answer.